View Single Post
11-15-2012, 04:26 PM
Registered User
mossey3535's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,596
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
The NHL's answer to overspending on players is to limit the earning potential of all players. Sidney Corsby is worth every penny he's being paid, both to the Pens and the league and in fact he's probably worth much more. Rather than take responsibility for signing contracts that make sense for your team, the NHL wants to limit contract length, take away free agency eligibility and arbitration rights. Asking for a reduction in the players percentage of HRR is reasonable, asking players to limit their earning potential so that teams don't have to be fiscally responsible is not.
Ok, so why does their own union constantly propose a solution that limits their earning potential even more?

If you really expect growth to continue, a small hit down to 50/50 will quickly be outstripped by the increase in the size of the pie.

The initial player's rhetoric actually made some sense - revenue sharing will help even things out.

I think honouring face value was a concession given by the owners to the players, since the players are not legally owed that money.

Even though an imposed annual 1.75% raise seems ludicrous, if the league does grow between 5-7% per year, then that raise would represent the players limiting their own earning potential. How does that make sense in the context of this argument?

If the players really want increased salary certainty, why would they allow so much of the season to be wasted already - all this stalling just eats into any gains they could make with less risk.

The whole problem is that the PA has no clearly defined financial goal. They have a bunch of different ideas that they don't seem willing to prioritize and a time agenda that seems oblivious to economic reality.

Both side suck, but the PA's stance so far is just baffling and stupid.

mossey3535 is offline